Store-Bought Indignant Protests

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Gentlemen:

If you insist on discussing the racial aspect of these protests, please keep the choice of words simple rather than witty. Numerous Americans of largely African descent take offense to "Negro," "Colored," or "dusky-hued," among other terms. The generally accepted terms that are considered most "neutral" in character are 'black' or 'african-american.' Please stick to those so as to not accidentally offend.

Thanks.

[Lemur]

Seamus, thanks for the guidance.

You heard that phrase "Our America" and you have personally decided that is proof-positive that the phrase is the smoking gun of latent racism in the crowds opposed to the leading health-care reform proposals put out for discussion right now.

Well, for one i would never say that I have "proof positive"; I'm voicing my opinion, as are we all. You can "prove" things in mathematics. Just about everywhere else it's opinion, evidence and reason, but rarely (if ever) proof.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not convinced that race is primary to the protesters, but I think it's likely. Louis made a good argument that this is just over-the-top partisanship as usual, and there's good evidence to support that perspective, given the eruptions of the past. I do believe, however, that the anger and fear of the town hall screamers is something new and interesting, and that the usual motives ascribed to rightwing loonbats don't quite explain what has been going on.

The government is buying votes and placation. What really torques me is they always buy them with my dollars, taken from my children.

Well, eventually the dollars will be taken from our children, but right now they're being taken from us. I'm not going to dispute your perspective here; it's perfectly valid, although I don't entirely agree. We could spin off onto the question of whether or not a graduated income tax is legitimate, but that's a whole 'nother conversation.

What could possibly be more terrifying than the belief, rational or not, that the government was going to rob you and hand your money for your health care over to the unwashed masses, leaving you with squat all to provide for yourself and your family? And you can't understand an emotional response?

In fairness, I don't understand getting freaked out and angry about most issues. I knew in my bones that going into Iraq was a epically bad idea, but I never protested or marched or signed petitions. Maybe I'm too relaxed to relate.

As I said earlier when I was going over these same points with Xiahou (who has declared "mission accomplished" and run off to a victory parade), what I don't understand is the willingness to believe the absolute worst on the part of the protesters. Where is that coming from? Example:

But in the sense of she personally believes she's fighting for the welfare of her family? I don't doubt it.

So why does she believe she's defending the welfare of her family? Based on the logic and rhetoric of the more extreme rightwing protesters, we have been trending toward socialism since 1913 (at the absolute latest). We have socialized medicine for the elderly, a socialized military, a socialized police system, socialized jails, socialized payments for the elderly, socialized prescription medicine, etc., etc., etc. Why the eruption of anger now? Xiahou makes the argument that it's deficits, but that's completely facile. We've had massive deficits since the inauguration of Saint Reagan. Why the explosion of angst now? Why are we losing America now?

And yet, you completely refuse to address my point that Frank & Pelosi are more feared and despised than Obama. Perhaps because it doesn't fit into your nifty, pre-wrapped racism argument?

Don, I'm not simplifying or mocking your arguments, and I'm doing my level best not to put words in your mouth. Let's have a conversation, okay? If I want blind partisan fury, I know where to go for it, and I'd rather it wasn't from you.

Frank and Pelosi are better targets than President 44, yes indeedy, and their polling is abysmal. So naturally they're a focus of rage. But you don't hear the protesters screaming about Nancy, do you? And you don't see Frank being singled out. On the signs, in the shouts, it's all-Obama all the time. So this seems to undercut the argument you're making.

I laid out a caricature I've seen quite a lot from the Daily Kos crowd....

And laid it at my door, claiming that it's my baby. Unworthy, Don.

Seriously, if you want me to quit playing identity politics, lead the way.

So by suggesting that there's a strong element of racial fear, fear of the Other, at play with the protesters, I deserve no reasoned debate or honest responses? I've pulled a Godwin? How am I supposed to discuss this, then? I do believe xenophobic fear is at play with the protesters. I do think there's a nativist element at work. Is there any way for me to express this that won't cast me into a pit of unworthiness in your eyes, or am I invalidated by merely holding these opinions?

[Don Corleone]

Well, in reading your latest Lemur, I think we're going to have to agree we're looking at a turquoise egg. I'm saying it's blue and you're saying it's green. I don't think we can make much progress here, other than I'd like to point out two last facts, then, unlike Bill O'Rieley, I really will let you have the last word:

1) You're engaging in selective memory if you think the people at these town halls are less ramped up then people were in the 90's. Don't you remember G. Gordon Liddy telling his listeners to always go for the headshot, cause ATF agents always wear flak jackets?

2) No, you're not freaked out enough to go protest. Neither am I. But I think we can both agree that there are people for whom such moral outrage and unrest comes quite naturally. Wouldn't it stand to reason that these individuals would precisely be the ones to get all ramped up, racially motivated or not? The very fact that you're marching around a town hall meeting, taking your chances with secret service agents and finding your way onto the No-Fly list means you're pretty passionate.... WITHOUT a racial bias.


There. I've said all I can on the matter. If you're still convinced.... "Nope, it's gotta be racism", I can't sway you. I think Louis has the right of it though. Yes, the protesters are getting carried away. So is an overreaching government. If we're not careful, we're going to lose our souls in all of this outrage-politic business, both sides.

It doesn't bother me that you've considered the matter and concluded that the protesters must be racially-nativsticly motivated, had that actually happened. What bothers me is the tone to your arguments that there can be no other explanation. It smacks of a "you're either with us, or the evildoers" type of argument, one I would hope you would credit me with never having made during your time in the wilderness.

[Xiahou]

Xiahou makes the argument that it's deficits, but that's completely facile. We've had massive deficits since the inauguration of Saint Reagan. Why the explosion of angst now? Why are we losing America now?

As I've pointed out, and you ignored, the current years deficit is projection to be roughly quadruple the previous record set by Bush. If people groused about Bush's spending -indeed, a large part of the GOPs fall from power was due to overspending- what do you think a proportional reaction to quadrupling that is? Hmmm?

The White House recently raised their 10yr deficit projection from $7 trillion to $9 trillion. Obama has promised to halve the deficit by the end of his first term. Do you realize, that even if he succeeds, the deficit will still be higher than it's highest under Bush? You've tried to call people who are upset about the scale of the deficits hypocrites. If you're going to do that, maybe you should look in the mirror. You railed against Bush's spending- where's your outrage now?

I'm aware that the traditional Obama talking point on deficits is to blame Bush for the current deficit. So, before anyone does that, please consider what I've said above- Obama has said that by the end of his term deficits will still be higher than they were at any time during the previous administration. How long can they get by on blaming the last guy?

What's really unsettling is when you look at the projections. Indeed, they forecast the deficit lowering by the end of Obama's first term. But what happens after that? It takes off like a rocket again! At no point will it even tie the highest deficit of the Bush years which I think we can all agree was bad enough.
Edit: It's important to note that this is not considering any of the proposed health care reforms- all of which would drive the projections significantly upward.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

How is alarm over this facile?

So by suggesting that there's a strong element of racial fear, fear of the Other, at play with the protesters, I deserve no reasoned debate or honest responses?

I seriously can't imagine what "debate" you're looking for with your statement. How does one make an honest response to something you've stated is solely your opinion? How did making sweeping generalizations about the protesters forward the debate? You're just trying to use your unsubstantiated opinion to discredit them. You are not helping the debate. You registered your opinion, just drop it and move on.

[Lemur]

Don, you make excellent points; between you and Louis, I guess you've got history on your side, and good examples to back it up.

Xiahou, you're your usual self. I said that the argument that the outrage was caused by deficits was facile, not that such outrage would be facile in and of itself. In other words, I said that to say that clowns cause road rage was untrue, not that road rage is a myth. Strange how your reading comprehension drops so precipitously when you're parsing an argument with which you disagree.

How does one make an honest response to something you've stated is solely your opinion?

Oh, I dunno, Louis and Don C managed quite handily, but maybe they're special.

[Xiahou]

Oh, I dunno, Louis and Don C managed quite handily, but maybe they're special.

That's funny, because your statement "So by suggesting that there's a strong element of racial fear, fear of the Other, at play with the protesters, I deserve no reasoned debate or honest responses?" was directed at Don.
I think he's already said, wisely, that he has washed his hands of you in this thread. If I'm smart, I'll do the same. I mean, I seem to remember being able to carry on rational discussions with you, but looking over your responses in this thread I'm hard pressed to find one not laced with childish insults. Have the last word, I'm out.

Edit:If someone else can see the points Lemur's making that I'm apparently missing, please point them out. Maybe if they can be made without the seething rage, I'll be able to pick them out. But I have to admit, right now, I'm not seeing any. It's not that I'm unwilling to discuss the OT, I just have no more interest in discussing it with him.

[Lemur]

I asked Don to argue in good faith because I know he's capable of it, and I know he's a good guy. If you find vindication in that, you are quite easily sated.